Skip to main content

About your Search

20121121
20121129
STATION
CNNW 19
MSNBCW 10
CSPAN 7
CSPAN2 3
KTVU (FOX) 2
KGO (ABC) 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 69
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 69 (some duplicates have been removed)
to draw down in afghanistan, and we have a continuing effort against al qaeda, and as we achieve some of those important goals, the united states is moving towards the end of the longest sustained armed conflict in the nation's history, and i would also like to take a moment to express my pride in the men and women in uniform who have fought throughout that period, putting their lives on line to protect this country. were it not for their sacrifices, were in not for their willingness to do that, we would not be able to accomplish what we have. thank god they are there. [applause] one thing i found out when i came from the cia to the defense department, i have a lot of great joy is. -- i have a hell of a lot of great choice. i have got great weapons, a -- i have a hell of a lot of great great ships, great plains, great toys. \ technologies, but none of that would be worth anything without the good men and women in uniform that serve this country and did it take their lives to protecting this country. that is the real strength of the united states of america. as we transition into this
-- against al qaeda is moving beyond clear combat zone. he also discusses the impact of the so-called fiscal cliff, also budget cuts to the defense department. this is an hour and 15 minutes. [applause] >> thank you for coming. it is an honor to be back and an honor to be introducing my old boss. as you know, secretary of the net debt is one of the most respected and experienced hands in washington. his resume is legendary. chairman of the budget committee back in the day when they actually passed a budget, director of the office of management and budget, and chief of staff to president clinton when the white house, director of the central intelligence agency, and now secretary of defense, so the question is what in the world are you going to do next. this extraordinary resume does not do justice to the man. leon panetta is a wonderful human being and in some ways a man of contrasts. i am going to give you examples. he is known among his counterparts around the world for his warm italian bear hugs. he is also known for the laser light focus he displayed on hunting down osama bin laden. he of
the controversial intelligence talking points the language including al-qaeda, senator said rice should have drilled down and asked more questions given her access to classified material that showed immediate and compelling evidence of the terrorist involvement. >> when you have a position that the ambassador to the united nations, you go well beyond unclassified talking points in the daily preparation and responsibilities for that job. >> rice met with senator lieberman who asked whether rice was coached by the administration before her sunday show appearances. >> she said no, she was not given messaging points at all by the white house. >> in a written statement, rice who was joined by the acting c.i.a. director on the hill said, "we explain that the talking point provideed by the intelligence community and the initial assessment upon which they were based were incorrect in key respect." there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. full week after the attack on david letterman, the president was still blaming the anti-islam video. >> extremists and terrorists use this as an excuse to attack
" for al qaeda. remember, the administration said she was working from edited talking points. the question is, who did the editing? today, the senators say that acting director morell told them the fbi did. they say they later heard from the cia that he had quote, misspoken and the cia was, in fact, responsible. so what's going on here? cnn intelligence correspondent suzanne kelly has been working her sources. she's joining us now. suzanne, you just got a statement from the cia. what are they saying? >> reporter: actually, i've gotten this statement from an intelligence official who told me it was in fact the cia that made the changes which is more or less what the intelligence community has been saying from the beginning, that this was a collaborative effort within the intelligence community to get their language straight and that the reasons they were doing it had to do with, as you know, classified sources. i can read you what the u.s. intelligence official has just told me. there were literally just coming in on my phone. there were several valid intelligence and investigatory reasons
. "the communicators" airs tonight on c-span. >> last week, he talked about the strategy toward al qaeda. this is about one hour and 15 minutes. >> good evening. thank you for coming. it is an honor to be introducing my boss. he is one of the most respected and experienced hands in washington. his reputation is legendary. he's chairman of the house budget committee when the actually passed a budget. his chief of staff to president clinton in the white house. now secretary of defense. what in the world are you going to do next? this is not action do justice to the man. leon panetta is a wonderful human being and in some ways a man of contrasts. i am going to give you examples. he is known among his counterparts around the world for his warm italian bear hugs. he is also known for the laser light focus he displayed on hunting down osama bin laden. he often holds meetings in his pentagon office with his dog curled up around his feet as he is pressing a commander on how a war plan is going to advance or how they are going to make more progress. when traveling, who he is known to hang out in
to disrupt, degrade, dismantle and ultimately defeat those who attacked america on 9/11. al qaeda. since september 11, 2001, our country has worked relentlessly to bring those responsible for the worst terrorist attacks in our history to justice. we have made very clear that we are at war with al qaeda. we've also made clear in going after osama bin laden and dozens of others that nobody attacks the united states and gets away with it. and we have made clear that we will do everything possible to ensure that such an attack never , never happens again. that means counterterrorism will continue as a key mission to our military and intelligence professionals. as long as violent extremists pose a direct threat to the united states, our allies and global interests, we have a responsibility to counter that threet. during my tenure as director of the c.i.a. and secretary of defense, i have truly been privileged to meet and work with thousands of professionals who have made this fight their fight, who have put their lives on the line for their country and who have built the most effective global
it certainly was clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al-qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy, and clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely, it was wrong. megyn: joining us now, kelly ayotte, a republican senator from new hampshire who was part of those meetings today and whose sound bite you just heard. senator, welcome back to the program. >> thank you, megyn. megyn: all right, explain that for us, if you would. why are you more troubled today than you were before you met with ambassador rice? >> well, first of all, i appreciated that we had the meeting today, but i will say that up front the acting director of the cia and ambassador rice said that the story about the video and the protests was wrong. in fact, the acting director of the cia said by the 22nd of september they had absolutely confirmed that that was wrong, and so i think the first issue is having gone on every major news network and represented that story that she now admits is wron
such as al-qaeda and others that they are going to have to live witness because there is not any way to get rid of them. >> i see the mideast deteriorating. i think the last four years has been a failure by the obama administration to realistically to assess the threat that growing. arab spring we didn't see coming but after that the administration had a hands off policy. when they were trying to pull khadafy out libya came for a killing zone. if it weren't for secretary clinton and ambassador rice pushing obama, it would have been worse. we need to be training a libyan army to replace the militias. i went in september of last year with marco rubio and john mccain and myself went to libya. we came back and said the biggest threat to libya making it is these militias. we need to help the libyans train a national army. they were willing to pay for it. in egypt we really led from behind. this idea of having a hands off policy toward syria is about to blochb the whole region up. the war is coming to israel. it's affecting turkey and other places. so i believe that if they don't lead from the fr
from the director of central intelligence agency, that references of al qaeda were taken out for security reasons not for political reasons. do you accept the explanation by ambassador rice? >> i don't believe that the best intelligence assessment on 16, september was that there was a spontaneous event in benghazi based on a video that led to a mob that became a riot. the cia station chief on the day of the attack reported in realtime we're under attack by al qaeda affiliates. the president in libya said on the day of atack -- excuse me on 16, september, al qaeda was involved. we've got drones. released the video. we know what a mob looks like in the mideast. i am increasingly convinced the fbi interviewed the survivors in ramstein, germany, the day after and convinced that the best and current intelligence assessment on 16, september went against the video. the video was a political smoke screen. the actual facts were this was a coordinated preplanned terrorist attack. when the president said on "letterman" we think the video caused this. when he said at the u.n. we won't le
and that there had been al qaeda influence to individuals from other countries that had come in. and that it was premeditated and planned. and i just don't understand why the administration would have susan rice go on television and say that the views essentially of the president of libya just didn't matter. she completely discounted them. that doesn't make sense to me. >> you suggested she was behaving politically. fair enough, if that's the case. what would be the political purpose in denying the role of terrorism in this act, the central role of terrorism, organized terrorism, in the death of ambassador stevens? what would be her purpose politically in that? >> i believe that the administration wanted to portray libya as an unqualified success story. and ambassador rice was one of the chief advocates of our involvement in libya, so arguably had a personal stake in that as -- contrary of the administration to say libya was awash with weapons, that there was a growing al qaeda presence, that there were training camps for islamic extremists, particularly near benghazi. and that
.i.a. immediately it was terrorism and it said al-qaeda in the official c.i.a. talking points. but after it left our hands, we don't know exactly who changed the talking points. brian, that's what everybody in washington has been trying to figure out, who, who, who did it? >> brian: the national intelligence director, james clapper, the same who went up to general petraeus and said, i really suggest you resign, says it was my office. he said that because the al-qaeda mentions by the c.i.a. in his mind, were tenuous and too tenuous to publicize, so cbs learned and we have confirmed, that we decided to tell congress that -- or susan rice a different story. >> alisyn: this is curious because the committee that's investigating this and the house said that they tonight remember that. in fact, that is quite opposite from what was testified to previously about who knew what when. so congressman mike rogers, who is the chairman of the committee said he finds this story officially, basically, out of the office and he wants to reinterview james clapper to ask about this, quote, new explanation coming out of t
there was clearly counter information that affirmed that this was a terrorist attack orchestrated by an al qaeda affiliated organization. >> by now you know the story. rice intimated a cheesy anti-islam film caused the murderous rampage at the consulate in benghazi, libya. not true. her assertion on several sunday talk shows was okayed by the intelligence community and caused one great big partisan brawl. soon, democrats piled on, accusing republicans of racism. >> susan rice's comments didn't send us to iraq and afghanistan. somebody else's did. but you're not angry with them. i would just say in closing that it is a shame that any time something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities. i have a real issue with that. >> yet when asked about mccain, rice was conciliatory. >> i have great respect for senator mccain and his service to our country. i always have. and i always will. i do think that some of the statements he made about me have been unfounded. but i look forward to having the opportunity at the appropriate time to discuss all of this with him. >> so, after mccain saying he would
it a spontaneous demonstration sparked by an antimuslim film and did not mention the link to al qaeda. after all this taking on her critics, the republican senators weren't impressed. >> bottom line, i'm more dist b disturbed now than i was before that the 16 september explanation about how four americans died in benghazi, libya, by ambassador rice, i think does not do justice to the reality at the time and in hindsight clearly was completely wrong. >> rice maintains she did nothing wrong. issuing a statement saying we stressed that neither i nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the american people at any stage of this process. peter brooks is a former deputy assistant secretary of defense, general wesly clark and, of course, former democratic presidential candidate. senator mccain was asked who do you blame more at this point? ambassador rice or president obama? he says the president is ultimately responsible. do you agree this is no longer about susan rice? she has cleared the air about her name? >> i don't think so. i mean, i'll let the senator speak for himself, i wasn'
to have the opportunity to discuss these issues with her. why did she say that -- why did she say that al-qaeda has been decimated in her statement here on this program? al-qaeda hasn't been decimated. they're on the rise. they're all over iraq. they're in training camps n libya, they're on the rise everywhere in the middle east. there's a lot of questions we have for embassador rice and she would -- i'm sure i'll have the opportunity to discuss these with her. >> chris: you're saying that she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position just as she said. but she's not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states, who in a debate with mitt romney, said he had said it was a terrorist attack. he hadn't. that night on "60 minutes" he said they didn't know what kind of attack it was and he continued -- >> chris: he said in an interview with 60 minutes. >> which we didn't see until after the election. i'm sure it was such an inconsequential statement it didn't deserve the attention of the
that the obama administration decimated al qaeda. that's something that rubs these republican senators the wrong way. i will tell you what she told them, i'm told, inside the classified briefing this morning, what she meant was it was the core of al qaeda, that's what the obama administration has decimated. but these republican senators think she's lef the impression it's al qaeda in general. last thing i will tell you i was told she did say to the republican senators behind closed doors she regrets saying what she said because she knows it was simply not right. >> where does this go from here? obviously investigating intelligence officials as well, i imagine? >> yes. as i said, the acting director of the cia also in this room. and senators, republicans and democrats, are not thrilled with the information that they got publicly or privately. but the -- what goes on from here more meetings. she's back here, we believe, this afternoon, tomorrow she has a meeting with one senator, bob corker of tennessee, probably others. she's going to make the rounds and she's going to keep trying to persuade sen
senators tuesday it was the fbi that took references to al qaeda out of these unclassified talking points rice used for her tv appearances. but later in the day morell called to say he was wrong. it was actually his agency, the cia. >> i can't help but feel incredibly disappointed that we were told something at 10:00 a.m. that couldn't withstand scrutiny for six hours and that's totally inconsistent with what we were told the day before. we now have five different explanations of who changed the talking points to take out benghazi and four different reasons. this is becoming a joke. >> reporter: it is quite surprising that the acting cia director gave incorrect information on something as politically explosive as the controversial talking points that susan rice used in a meeting with among the administration's chief republican critics. you know, the answer to why he did it according to senators is simply that he misspoke, wolf. >> so a quick question, dana. does that mean michael morell if the president were to nominate him to become the permanent director of the cia he would have problem
the highest ranking administration official to link the attacks with al qaeda. you can see john mccain interview tonight at 6:00 p.m. eastern, only on the fox news channel. >>heather: and now from egypt, a teen member of the muslim brotherhood killed in a deadly attack on the headquarters near cairo. this is the party of the egypt's president morsi face unrest after a decision granting himself sweeping new powers. and now, streaming live from cairo, steve, what can you tell us about his planned meeting on monday with his opponent? >>reporter: there are signs that president morsi is trying to reach out to the opponents and will meet on monday with chief justices here in cairo. judges across the country have gone on strike since president morsi's decrease putting himself above the court. he is trying to reach out to the judges perhaps some time to move toward compromise by the president but talks with the opposition leaders with opposition figures still unlikely. many members of the opposition say there will be no dialogue with president morsi until he revokes the decrease. >>heather
. also this morning, defense secretary leon panetta spelling out the future against al qaeda, while speaking about the september 11th attacks at a washington-based think tank. he praised what's being done but he says there's still a lot of work left to do. >> we know we're going to be smaller. we're going to be leaner. it's a reality of coming out of these wars. but we have to be agile. we have to be deployable. we have to be flexible. and we have to be on the cutting edge of technology. >> panetta also talked about investing in cyberspace, unmanned systems for the future. also, former boxing champ hector macho camacho is recovering this morning, after being shot in his face in his native puerto rico. police say camacho and another man were just sitting in a car when someone opened fire. the second man was killed. the bullet caused damage to two vertebrae in camacho's neck. he is in serious condition but expected to survive. >>> a near-riot caught on camera at a city council meeting in newark, new jersey last night. take a look. listen to this. people there storming the stage after
explained she was using these unclassified talking points which were stripped of references to al qaeda still classified by the intelligence community. so rice used the word extremist. >> extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. >> reporter: a source inside the meeting tells cnn rice admitted to gop senators she was aware of classified information suggesting al qaeda was behind the attack. and yet gop senators point out she still said this publicly. >> we have decimated al qaeda. >> reporter: cnn has also told rice tried to clarify to gop senators that what she meant was al qaeda's core leadership had been decimated. but gop senators argue rice was putting pre-election spin before national security. >> it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obama three weeks before an election. >> reporter: rice did not answer our questions. she did release a statement admitting her talking points "were incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. while we certainly wish we had perfect information jus
the opportunity to discuss these issues with her. why did she say that -- why did she say that al qaeda has been decimated? in her statement, here, on this program. al qaeda has not been decimated. they are on the rise. they are all over iraq. training camps are in libya. they are all overseer ye syria on the rise in the middle east and there's a lot of questions for ambassador rice and i'm sure i'll have the opportunity to discuss these with her. >> chris: but you are saying that she could conceivably get your vote for secretary of state? >> i think she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position. just as she said. but, she's not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states, who, on -- in a debate with mitt romney, said that he had said it was a terrorist attack and he hadn't and in fact that night on "60 minutes" he said they didn't know what kind of an attack it was and continued to say -- >> he said in an interview with "60 minutes" which we didn't see -- >> didn't see until after the election, i'm sure that it was such an inconsequential st
at you, this was an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community, i think they failed in many ways, but with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode as related that created a mob that turned into a riot was far filled. and at the end of the day, we're going to get to the bottom of this. we have to have a system that we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just say you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give bad information. here's what i can tell you -- the american people got bad information on 16 september, they got bad information from president obama days after, and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give bad information, isn't it better to give no information at all? so my belief is, not only is the information bad and i'm more convinced than ever that it was bad, it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obam
under oath in front of congress that he had no idea how the words al-qaeda and other phrases were removed from the talking points that cia prepared and later were reinserted. he said he didn't know how that happened, and he put out a statement earlier this week saying it happened in his shop. those are two totally contradictory things he's saying. gregg: and by the way, it's a crime to lie to congress. but let me move on. the president's news conference last week, he said the people elected him to work with the other side and not to get into partisan fights. but, steve, if he nominates rice to be the next secretary of state, wouldn't that trigger a major partisan fight, and would he really do that when, after all, he's trying to reach a bipartisan deal to avoid the fiscal cliff? >> right. look, i would be surprised if the president put her forward given everything that we've seen. there were one or two scenarios, right? either she was, this was a tryout for her and she failed, or it was the case that they sent her out on purpose as the president suggested when he said they sent ou
explained she was using unclassified talking points which were stripped of references to al qaeda, still classified by the intelligence community. so rice used the word extremist. >> extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. >> reporter: a source inside the meeting tells cnn rice admitted to gop senators she was aware of classified information suggesting al qaeda was behind the attack, and yet gop senators point out she still said this publicly. >> we have decimated al qaeda. >> reporter: cnn also was told rice tried to clarify to gop senators what she meant was al qaeda's poor leadership has been decimated but gop senators say it is proof rice was putting pre-election spin before national security. >> it was unjustified to give the scenario as presented by ambassador rice and president obama three weeks before an election. >> reporter: ambassador rice, what do you say to republicans who say your comments were politically motivated? rice didn't answer our question but admitted her talking points were, quo, incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstr
't involved in removing the information on al qaeda. he said the intelligence community made the changes. in responding to this report, mccain admitted that he was wrong, but still took a shot at the white house. he said intelligence officials, quote, told us they did not know who made the changes. now we have to read the answers to our questions in the media. this latest episode is another reason why many of us are so suspicious of actions of this administration when it comes to the benghazi attack. meanwhile, his sidekick, lindsey graham, is going into full attack mode. senator graham wrote a letter to president obama on tuesday, saying that he's concerned. many questions remain unanswered on the benghazi attacks. he says the president has a duty to the american people to answer the basic questions surrounding the benghazi attack. so far, all of the right-wing conspiracy theories about the benghazi attack have been completely wrong. it's about time they dropped all of this nonsense and just went back to doing their jobs. let's bring in democratic consultant, tara doudel, and also with
that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy and clearly the impression that was given was wrong. ambassador rice said today absolutely it was wrong. said't understand the cia clearly that information was wrong and they knew by the 22nd it was wrong yet they have not clear that up with the american people to date including they said this was the reaction to to the video, the attacks. what troubled me also is obviously, the changes made to the unqualified talking points were misleading. just to be clear, when you have a position where you are ambassador to the you knighted nations, you go well beyond -- unitedador to the nations, you go well beyond talking points. in addition to, it is not just the talking collins, but clearly it is her responsibility as an ambassador to the united nations to do much more than that. >> before anyone can make an intelligent and decision, we need to do a lot more. to this date, we do not have the fbi interviews of the survivors from after the attack. we do not have the basic information about what was said about the night of
's certainly clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. and clearly the impression that was given, the information given to the american people, was wrong. in fact, ambassador rice said today, absolutely it was wrong. i don't understand the cia said clearly that that information was wrong. >> dana bash, let me bring you in, senior congressional correspondent, i think i saw you in the crush of reporters earlier today on the hill. set me straight. heading into this closed door meeting, the story was the senators seemed to be -- or john mccain seemed to be backing off some of the criticism of ambassador rice, and in listening to that stakeout and the three senators i'm hearing words like troubled and failed and bad. what happened in the meeting? >> reporter: well, the reason i'm told that they did soften the rhetoric and they did going into this meeting is because susan rice requested a meeting and the senators said that they felt that it was the right thing to do to kind of ease up on her publicly while they were waiting to h
was solely responsible for changes, including stripping out languages about al qaeda. to anyone who is listening, it was clear from general petraeus and others who testified last week that the talking points were amended to protect permission and subject to any political spending. the administration of the attack blamed a video or benghazi being attacked by terrorists. the one james clapper and whether he pressed it on the white house and others in the intelligence community, it is a question of did he do that at the direction of the white house? reporter: they want specifics on this new timeline. comments in response made by lawmakers or calls and e-mails were not responded to. jenna: catherine herridge, thank you so much. jon: the old fiscal cliff is still hanging out there. new perspective on the political implications. the risk for the president as well as democrats if lawmakers do not reach a deal. and it will cost you more to drive over to grandma's house for thanksgiving. plus, it is way beyond your control could make travel even more expensive. all coming up on "happening no
that went to the daily briefing said this was a terrorist attack with groups connected to al qaeda. the others gave a different impression, if not contradicting that. like it was a protest. the person who delivered the talking points was susan rice. she said something that i think republicans believe she knew wasn't true. she said it, she must from known it wasn't true. >> i don't follow that logic for two reasons. why would she know it wasn't true. >> because the classified information at the time contradicted it. >> right. but the point is intelligence contradicts itself all the time. in fact, you have numerous channels of information that are intentional or can both be true, both a terrorist attack and people there because of the movie, which seemed like what was the case. so, if you were given one set of talking points that were classified i don't see why -- do you go back to the cia and say you are contradicting yourself? >> maybe it's the intelligence community here and you want to obscure the fact we know who the terrorists were -- >> this is petraeus' argument at the closed
briefing said this was a terrorist attack with groups connected to al qaeda. and then the up classified talking points gave a very different impression. the person who delivered those talking points was susan rice. she said something republicans believe wasn't true. >> i don't follow that logic. why would she know it wasn't true? and second of all -- >> because the classified information at the time contradicted it. >> right, but the point is, intelligence contradicts itself all the time. in fact, you have numerous channels of intelligence can be both a terrorist attack and people there because of the movie, and so if you were given one set of talking points that are classified and then a litter iteration that are unclassified, do you go back to the cia and say you guys are contradicting yourself? >> maybe it's the intelligence community here, and there are reasons why you would want to obscure the fact that we would know who the terrorists were, if there was -- >> which is petraeus' argument. >> i don't necessarily buy that either. but the point being at the time, the intelligence comm
than it was before -- [inaudible] [inaudible] -- an al qaeda storm in the making. i'm very disappointed in our intelligence community. i think they failed in many ways. with a little bit of inquiry and curiosity, i think it would be pretty clear that to explain this episode is related to the video they created a mob that turned into a riot was far filled. at the end of the day we're going to get to the bottom of this, we have to have a system we can trust. and if you don't know what happened, just so you don't know what happened. people can push you to give explanations and you can say i don't want to give that information. here's what i can tell you. the american people got that information on 16 september. think about information from president obama days after. and the question is, should they have been giving the information at all? if you can do nothing but give that information, isn't it better to give no information about? my belief is not only is the information that, but i'm more convinced than ever that it was unjustified to get the scenario is presented by ambassador rice and
groups in libya. we did nothing to help them. as a result of that the al qaeda and those affiliated groups have undue influence and the benghazi debacle is a result of that. bill: can we do anything about that when you consider the politics operating internally within these countries? >> in my own mind there is plenty we can do. right now engage in libya and let's get a security force and let's start gaining some control in that country and pushing back on the radicals. let's choose a side on the war taking place in syria and start helping the moderate rebels. even the united kingdom is looking towards doing something like that. why sit on the fence and turn it over to the rad cat islamists and the al qaeda which may be the case. bill: there is a power vacuum in the world. that's clear to see. jack keane, i appreciate your analysis. martha: coming up, a lurid tale of money and murder as a woman goes on trial accused of defriending a jackpot -- befriending a jackpot winner. she conned him out of the money and then she killed them. the drama that's unfolding in court. >> i'm telling y
or not that was even relevant. here's how he responded. >> two embassies were bombed by al qaeda, one simultaneously killing many. senator collins is certainly correct that at the time the ambassador to kenya requested additional security at -- or better security at the embassy because the security at that time was at a very busy intersection, not well-defended against car bombs and the like. as a result of the attacks, the state department produced new stand aurds which basically meant that any new embassy had to be moved back from major intersections or roads. and so, you know, collins is certainly right that this request was made. now, did susan rice not respond to that? i don't think we know the answer to that. was it even susan rice's responsibility? usually this is handled by the diplomatic security bureau which is in charge of these issues and so the fact that she was in charge of africa at the time of the state department may not have much bearing on this issue. we just -- and, you know, obviously she's not responsible for the benghazi security as ambassador of the u.n. we don't really know
three weeks before an election. >>reporter: the talking points that stripped out language including al qaeda, senators say she has classified material that showed evidence of terrorists. >> when you have a position of ambassador to the united nations you go classified talking points in your responsibility for the job. >>reporter: and her meeting this afternoon with senator lieberman, chair of the homeland security who is running their own investigation. >>shepard: what are the white house and ambassador rice saying? >>reporter: after the meeting she put out a statement which reads in part and i quote, "we explained the talking points provided by the intelligence community and the initial assessment upon which they were based were incorrect in a key respect. there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi." the white house briefing spokesman carney minimized the impact of her statements on the sunday talk shows and he turned the focus on to the importance of finding who was responsible. >> people are more interested in talking points to a sunday show several months ago than they are i
, that there are no unanswered questions. the senators saying this morning the acting c.i.a. director morell told them the al-qaeda references were dropped in the c.i.a. talking points at the request of the f.b.i. because the bureau did not want to compromise an ongoing criminal investigation. but late this afternoon, c.i.a. officials called to correct the record, that it was actually them. rice met with senator joe lieberman who asked if she was coached by the add f before her talk hoe appearances. >> she said no, she was not given messaging points at all by the white house prior to her appearance on those sound morning shows. >> so the meeting today did not settle the matter. it certainly is not as far as these republicans are concerned. >> shepard: what's the response from the administration? >> in that written statement, rice who was joined by the acting c.i.a. director on the hill, said, quote, we explained the talking points provided by the intelligence community and the initial assessment upon which they were based were incorrect in the key respect there was no protest or demonstration in benghazi. also at
to do with them. and they are the ones who removed any mention of al qaeda, not the white house. the president defended ambassador rice at his cabinet meeting today. listen. >> susan rice is extraordinary. couldn't be prouder of the job she has done. [ applause ] >> shepard: while the president has not nominated anybody to replace hillary clinton as secretary of state. she has said she will not stay on for the second term. but the president has called criticism of ambassador rice outrageous and told her critics to go after him instead. that may be what is happening. catherine herridge in the d.c. newsroom tonight. catherine. >> thank you, shepard. rice has met with six senators, five republicans and one independent so far. she has apparently failed to reassure them that she is a responsible choice for secretary of state and not as one critic said drinking every drop of the administration's kool-aid. >> the president is going to have to make the decision about who he nominates to be secretary of state. hopefully it will be someone that is able to both show independence but have t
, common interests, that the talibans, al qaeda will take over that country. and i think there is very, very important possibility. iraq, same thing. where is iraq going? i think it is high time that u.s. and iran start dialogue on these two strategically important issues. totally neglected and i'm a little upset about that. because what u.s. must swallow is it has to eliminate all talking about regime change in iran. it is up to the iranian people, reform is, the people who like to change the society. it's not united states which should make a regime change. and, of course, therefore, i think establish thematic relations. [inaudible] with switzerland or, wonderful diplomatic, wonderful people, but still, you have to have, take a have the courage to talk to the other guy and try to establish relations. and not send information through newspapers or brussels or other places. it is the u.s. should establish its own direct dialogue. so that's one thing. and the other, the inspections, and i think there is almost too simple to be true. i mean, one should recognize iran's right to enrich, e
. -- we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved. they knew by the 22nd that the information given to them was wrong, yet they have not cleared that up with the american people to date in saying they were wrong, including the president of the united states. host: the new hampshire senator went on to say she will block any clinton's successor, because she wants more information about the benghazi attacks. what is next on that front? since an individual senator can put a hold on a nomination. that could prevent this from going forward. we have seen this in previous cases. if we saw this in the bush and administration would john bolton. we have seen it in a couple of cases in the obama administration where nominee for a high government post was held up for a long time. it all depends in the end on whether kelly ayotte gets any allies from her fellow republicans on this, because the way you could overcome her individual opposition is to get about five republicans that the democrats would need to break any filibuster that she might muster. i suspect, based on what i've seen of the
for defense of democracy reveals u.s. interests in egypt, yes, ma'amen and tunisia were targeted by al-qaeda, in addition to their raid on the consulate in benefiting and the memo reads, quote, while much of the public debate has focused on the attack in benghazi alone, they deserve closer scrutiny. they are related to the al-qaeda network. ambassador rice is still recorded adds the front run torre place hillary clinton, although democratic senator dick durbin said yesterday he's not sure she could get the 60 votes needed for senate confirmation and he would try to get the votes together, but it's up to the president to nominate her first. >> steve: peter, thank you very much. her offensive yesterday was when the going gets tough, you got critics, go talk to them face-to-face. instead of making it better, she actually made it worse. then she brought along the acting director of the c.i.a. and he completely botched it. they were asked okay, so who changed the talking points? the c.i.a. guy said yep, i did. well, they called about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon and the c.i.a. told capitol hill,
with hamas because by law they are a terrorist organization. like you wouldn't deal with al qaeda. the egyptians, yes, they have special relations with them. i think the egyptian involvement was very valuable. i think the leadership that was exercised by president obama and hillary clinton was tremendous. and the formalities are of less consequences than the intentions and indeed the dealing on the ground. >> i understand that. but it also seems that formalities, especially on this issue that is so intractable, they -- they're more than formalities. that is a sign of something so much deeper. which brings me to egypt. you negotiated now using egypt as an interimmediate airy. they're an islamist government. their president appeared at rallies where they talk about jerusalem as the capital of the arabs, there are chants we are all hamas. as you said, he stepped up and played a pro active role here. are you setting a precedent where you're going to have to talk to hamas? >> well, again, we will be very happy to talk to hamas. we have been ready to talk to hamas since they took over g
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 69 (some duplicates have been removed)